Local elections: reading the runes.

It is a truism that not a great deal can be predicted from local election results.  After all, only a third of  those  entitled actually vote, and  even in these grim times (turnout was only 66% in the 2015 general election, and 69% in 2017) we can expect around twice as many to vote in the next general election, whenever it comes.

Be that as it may, lessons are being drawn , so I may as well join in.

The Tories lost 1 334 seats.  Given that forecasts of losses in the region of 1 000 were regarded  as spin so that, when the actual losses were less, that could be sold as "not al that bad" -  to lose nearly a third more is pretty grim.

Labour lost "only" 82 seats.  But, after nine years of Tory rule, we should normally expect the main opposition party to be making huge gains, even if the government were reasonably competent, which the present one  patently isn't.

By contrast we Liberal Democrats gained 703 seats, considerably more than the 411 we lost when these seats were last fought in 2015,and more than the 500 "predicted" by the Tories  reasons of spin as above. And the Greens gained 194 seats.*

Astonishingly, both Labour and Conservative spokespersons interpret the result as instructions to "get on" with Brexit, by which they seem to mean complete it, however damaging the result may be, rather than abandon it.

Surely this is bizarre: given that the parties which made gains are we Liberal Democrats, openly and enthusiastically in favour of remaining in the EU, and the Greens too though their position is more masked.

 Surely the message could more sensibly be read that Brexit be abandoned.

Having said that, we don't actually know what  the half of the electorate who didn't vote in these elections actually think. Nor is it sensible to assume that all those who voted Liberal Democrat of Green actually agree with (or even know about) our pro-Remain stance.

And, of course there are local factors.  In the ward where I campaigned  we won 65% of the votes, but at least one voter told me openly hat his vote was "for local" and that he, as a "Veteran" was for Brexit as he  wouldn't want to fight for the Europeans.  (He didn't seem impressed by my rejoinder that at least if we fought  for a cause approved by the EU we should have had a say, whereas we didn't have much say when coat-tailing the Americans.)

One thing that stood out for me in observing the counting of the votes was the vastly increased number of spoiled papers, any with "we want Brexit" or similar (sometimes not very polite) messages scrawled on them.  There is clearly a great deal of anger amongst those who want Brexit  regardless of, or indifferent to, the consequences.  But I suspect this anger is confined to a relatively small minority, (see here for an analysis of this) and we should be careful not to allow those who shout loudest, either in parliament or among the grass roots, to call the tune.

We can, I think, conclude for these results that Labour's stance of "sitting on the fence" re Europe is gaining no traction with the electorate,  and these results will probably diminish their enthusiasm for a general election,  which would most probably result in another parliament without a majority, and in which  they would be unlikely to be the largest party.

Nor will cries by disaffected Tories that Mrs May should be replaced make much difference.  Brexit will still remain unsolvable.

So we remain where we started.  Either MPs pluck up the courage to Revoke Article 50 without further ado (in my view the best solution) or we put it to the electorate again in a People's Vote.

*  I think the Greens  were fortunate to do so well.  The recent publicity about climate change, arising from the TV programmes by David Attenborough, and the campaigning of  of the young Swedish girl, the remarkable Greta Thunbeerg, pushed the green cause to the forefront at just the right moment for them